Author: Tom Fitzpatrick

Life

By on

A Philadelphia Eagle’s fan got banned from the Eagle’s Stadium and has lost his job for cussing out a fan from the other team.

First, call me old fashioned but I always thought it was wrong to cuss out anyone – friends, enemies, and particularly visitors from out of town. He says he was provoked. I just can’t see that anything the woman said would justify the bile that came from his mouth. In a stadium full of people of all ages from young children to little old ladies.

Then there is the matter of it being just a football game. At the last football game I attended, I found it remarkable that there are people at the stadium who are there to monitor fans’ behavior to ensure that everyone is behaving appropriately. This is gobsmacking. Grown adults being told how to behave. Even more amazing is that some of these people get angry about being asked to tone it down. They don’t see what is wrong with their behavior and have to be removed. I don’t know about you if somebody ever asked me to stop swearing because I was offending people, I would be mortified. I would have to leave in shame.

Apparently the job is necessary one as there are a lot of adults who don’t know how to behave in a crowd. It is a shame that nobody was able to stop this man from his tirade. He now has lost his job because he was cussing out people at a football game. Try and explain that one to the wife and kids.

By on

DEI is responsible for the Los Angeles fires now on going or so many conservatives believe.

I’m not sure why they believe this. There hasn’t been any evidence that women or people of color firefighters have failed during this fire. The critics keep coming back to an insanely stupid reply from a lesbian firefighter about carrying a big man out of burning building.

I mention that she is a lesbian because I think it added to the animus of the linked article. Hank Berrien, the author, made this ever so innocent statement about the firefighter’s involvement with Girl’s Fire Camps. Right. Important information. I don’t want to besmirch Berrien’s good name here but it was a gratuitous fact that had little to do with the rest of the article. What did her work with girls have to do with his point regarding DEI? Nothing, right. Lesbians. Working with children. Female children. I am not saying anything is wrong with that. Just noting this because it might interest our readers. With his little nudge he effectively lets everyone know she is both a terrible fire fighter and might possibly be a terrible person to boot.

On the other hand, the firefighter was asked a valid question and she botched her response. This hardly condemns DEI as a consideration in hiring as the LAFD is still primarily male, particularly in the fire houses. Males make up 97% of the department. How has DEI made Los Angeles less safe when the numbers reflect a mostly male fire department? All apparently strong enough to carry out a heavier man? Have there been complaints about women failing in their responsibilities? There is remarkably little evidence that there is a problem in this mostly male half white fire department.

No matter what, they focus on DEI as responsible for the catastrophe happening in Los Angeles now. Not 100 winds. Not lack of rainfall. Not unusually large amount of dried vegetation due to a really wet winter. Not that the fire ignited outside of the normal fire season. And, of course, the never mentioned climate change problem which isn’t a problem and no amount of evidence can change their minds. None of the these merit mentioning as causes.

Yet one female firefighter’s inability to give a good answer to a hypothetical question is the problem.

By on

The right wing media is spreading pernicious lies about DEI being a factor in the Los Angeles fires now burning. Forbes magazine, hardly a left wing source, found that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Some of this is based on speculation offered by Adam Carolla who when trying to apply to be a fire fighter many years agos was told that he wouldn’t be considered for 7 years because he was white man. Carolla also admits to having a 1.7 GPA which, and I am just speculating on this now, might have something to do with his long wait and the discouraging words he received at the fire house when asking for a job.

Anyway, a quick glance at the graduating class of 2024 proves Carolla wrong. There are a good number of white men in the group. In fact, if you look at the racial breakdown of Los Angeles Fire Department in 2018, Whites are a much larger portion of the fire department than their percentage in Los Angeles population — 49% Whites in Fire Department, 29% whites in Los Angeles and women make up barely 3% of the department with minority women making up less than 1%. So a department made up of 97% men which is important because one of the chief problems conservative critics have is the physical strength needed to fight fire. Men have more than women. There seems to be more than enough men out there working on the fire.

The unspoken subtext here is that somehow non-whites and women aren’t up to the job. Based on what evidence? Is there data that minorities and women are not performing their job? And if so, what are the problems and how do white men doing the same job compare? If someone graduates from the Fire Academy, doesn’t it mean they past the tests required by the LAFD to adequately perform their job? The critics keep returning to the lesbian women who lead the department. Where exactly have these women failed? Somehow the implication is that since DEI has been considered as a part of the hiring process that standards have somehow diminished. It isn’t like the good old days when only white men were running the LAFD.

But, of course, the good old days were not getting the best people available. They were limiting their search to white men and discriminated against people of color and women. How is this better? It is only when discrimination became an issue that women and people of color got a chance to become a fireman. The good old days. You know when Blacks need not apply for jobs they wanted. You didn’t have to consider women at all because they were the weaker sex. You know those good old days when discrimination was OK.

No one wants to hear about past discrimination when DEI is making it impossible for white men to advance now. Right. The thing is if Blacks and Latinos were given a chance 50 or so years ago to join the force DEI wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The problem is they were discriminated against and, because of that past discrimination, women and people of color are rightfully suspicious of their ability to be treated fairly. So ultimately DEI is the direct result of bad faith hiring from white men in the first place.

By all means, blame the Los Angeles Fires on DEI putting incompetents on the front line. I am sure it will encourage those brave people fighting the fires to give their all to put them out. Really, it is shitty way, particularly in the absence of evidence, to treat people who are putting their lives on the line.

By on

Yesterday I reported on a terrible fashion trend in men’s underwear and I am seeing more even more outlandish ones today:

It looks like the man is wearing a very large diaper and a too small bra. And the zipper. What purpose could it have but make dressing up in it even more difficult? What in God’s name were they thinking? Why would any self respecting man think that rambling into their bedroom with this on would spark a romantic tryst is beyond me.

This has so much wrong with it I don’t now where to begin. It is aesthetically unpleasing, impractical to wear and it looks terribly uncomfortable. A definite no from me.

By on 1 Comment

A few backs I reported that my spider, who very cleverly incorporated the light cord on our porch into her web, is missing. I looked at the light cord the other day and saw this:

She is back. Or one of her daughters is. Although she has irritated me a little because I now have to stand on my tippy toes to reach the cord but it is a small price to pay to work with such a creative animal.

By on

So Donald Trump is having a party to celebrate his Inauguration. Good for him. He also wants somebody else to pay for it. Unsurprisingly billionaires are ponying up millions for this little shindig. New York Times reports he has $200 hundred million. I suppose tossing a million dollars into Trump’s party is the price of doing business. It, hopefully, keeps Trump from hassling them for the next four years.

On the other hand, it fails to convince me that they need less taxation. These men can give millions for a party. They are obviously not terribly worried about the cost. Indeed, I suspect it might be less expensive to pay a million dollars to Trump than pay actual taxes. and this is precisely why the very rich need to be taxed more.

By on

This little number came across from the Cheap Undies store.

No. No. No. No. A thousand times no. Seriously if this very attractive young man slipped into my bedroom wearing this ensemble, my laughing would first kill his ardor and I don’t think I could restrain my own laughter long enough to recapture mine. Maybe, and this is a very soft maybe here, if the strap hanging from his neck were made of leather I would give it a second look but even then I’m doubtful. No. Just no. No and more nos. It’s like he is wearing a very long and ugly neck tie tucked into his underwear. This is a mockery of male sexiness.

By on

Lucian Truscott IV proposes the most bizarre reason yet for the Democrats loss in last year’s election. His idea is that too many of the potential Democratic voters were high on legal marijuana. Yes. You heard it right. As a legal marijuana smoker, I can only reply one way. For Christ’s fucking sake, man, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one.

His opinion, which he himself concedes is based in speculation and no data whatsoever, sees millions of potential voters emotionally deadened to the prospect of an authoritarian takeover of their government just failed to vote. They just weren’t scared enough to vote because they were floating on feel good marijuana.

This isn’t even worth consideration — not even worth a maybe and lets look into this further. This is bullshit with a capital B. It is just a way to avoid looking at the bigger problem that large swaths of the Democratic Party establishment are out of touch with regular voters. Hell, they are out of touch with their own voters.

I hang with a primarily liberal Democratic group and I don’t know anyone who cares about proper pronoun use or support sex change operations for children. Republicans managed to attach these really suspect ideas onto the Democratic brand. The Democratic Establishment did relatively little to change this perception. Instead of Hell no this isn’t what we are about, they downplayed the importance of the issues saying that the vast majority of voters don’t care about these issues as they only affect a small number of Americans. Not talking about an issue that is unpopular to the general population is a terrible response to the question. It is as good as admitting that these issues were indeed important to the Democratic Party but are too toxic to talk about.

If people in my liberal circles aren’t particularly worried about proper pronouns and child sex change operations, then I am pretty certain that people who have less liberal inclinations are baffled. This awkward non-response left a lot of people asking why are we talking about transexuals in the schools in the first place. Parents would much prefer children learning what a pronoun is before learning which is their child’s preferred pronoun. These aren’t issues that will capture the imaginations of mainstream voters.

Say like the homeless overrunning the streets of our cities. I happen to agree that this is a bigger problem and isn’t easily solved. It also sounds like an excuse to do absolutely nothing. Well, then, if you can’t do anything to resolve the problem, then why wouldn’t people opt for someone, no matter how awful he is, who seems willing to take on the problem. Liberal government has to perform with the resources it has and perform well. Right now the perception is that government is failing to deal with the homeless problem and, I am afraid, this perception is right.

A lot of this caution is due to concern about the rights of homeless people. Middle class people vote, the homeless do not. Political parties have to deal with reality in order to get elected. This means addressing the concerns of this larger electorate is an important step in winning elections. When people have homeless people camping out on their streets and government says we are unable to help you because the homeless have rights, well what the hell can you do then? Shrugging your shoulders in despair is hardly a motivating call to action.

In the meantime, by all means, go after the non-voting marijuana smokers if you must. But, I think a better use of our resources would be to learn how to deliver better government services to the people who vote. All I know is that after reading all Truscott’s bullshit, I need to smoke me a joint.

By on

I recently wrote about the murder of Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO. People who I respect were arguing that the people really don’t have much power over healthcare executives and that, given the political climate, weren’t likely to see any changes. This forced Luigi Mangione into action. His frustration with the system gave him no other choice. I wanted to respond to these arguments but I couldn’t quite get my ideas straight about what I wanted to say. The massacre in New Orleans have clarified things for me.

The killer in New Orleans’s probably felt similar to Luigi Mangione, that nobody was listening to what he had to say and, in order to change that, he took extreme action to bring attention to his cause. Since US government is part of the problem, then all Americans are legitimate targets until the US government changes their policy.

Now I don’t believe that to be true and I am betting the most other Americans agree with me. The problem then becomes why is it all right to kill Thompson and not the party goers on Bourbon Street. It becomes a matter of splitting hairs. Thompson definitely held more power over his company than the average American has over government decisions. A terrorist, however, might argue Americans have the power to vote for their leaders. If they are going to vote for the leaders who oppose their cause, then they deserve to die until Americans change to a more ISIS friendly government.

If frustration with the system is a legitimate reason to massacre people then who is to say your frustration is better than my frustration. It is wrong to stay silent when the people dying are disagreeable people. Disagreeable people deserve due process and fair trials because we, as a people, have to know that we there is justice in the process and we are not just going after people we don’t like. Letting lone assassins make that decision is insanity because you are then are opening up political violence option to everyone, including people you disagree with, and who then will kill people you like.

The election of Trump was an incredibly disappointing result but then there is another election coming and, depending on how things go, the political climate could change. At least, this is the way forward I would like to pursue. Call me bourgeois but I much prefer the chaotic and slow machinery of democratic institutions than political violence. I can’t give up on it just yet. It worries me that so many people seem willing to let murder slide as long as the victim is perceived as a legitimate target because someone might decide that you are a legitimate target. Just ask the families who lost a loved one on Bourbon Street.

By on 2 Comments

I received a bill the other day for $1,400 for a procedure performed on me in February. It was so long ago that I didn’t even remember having a procedure done in February or why. I went through my Insurance submission statements to refresh my memory. I couldn’t find anything that quite matched either the date the provider gave or the price they charged.

So I called United Healthcare’s (UHC) customer service. The agent also was unable to explain what was going on so she put me on hold as she needed to talk to a supervisor. One half hour later, she has an explanation. The provider didn’t submit their bill in a timely manner so UHC declined payment.

This was, in no way, a satisfactory explanation because the company was now billing me instead of the insurance company. She then helpfully suggested calling the provider and asking for them to resubmit. This made no sense to me. First, UHC declined payment because the provider had exceeded their deadline for submissions. Does resubmitting the bill put it through some time machine which then makes the bill be on time? Furthermore, why does the provider now think I am responsible for the bill? I didn’t submit the late bill and I didn’t decline payment of the bill. This, as far as I could see, had nothing to do with me at all. It was between UHC and the company billing them.

The agent was speechless for a few seconds as she didn’t have a canned reply for my question. These questions stunned her into silence. Finally, she managed to repeat her previous statement about asking the provider to resubmit. I explained to her that she could call the provider and tell them to resubmit herself as this had nothing to do with me. She was so silent that I had to interrupt her silence with a question, so if UHC declines payment again then UHC will tell the provider to stop billing me because they screwed up. More silence.

I tried a different approach. “So, I shouldn’t pay this bill because all the provider has to do is resubmit the bill and they will get paid.” More silence. Finally, the poor thing lamely offered that I should call the provider and ask them to resubmit their bill. I asked again, “And then they will get paid, right?” Silence. I asked, “what if UHC denies the payment again and the provider bills me again what should I do.” Again silence.

I asked to speak to a supervisor but before I was disconnected from her I asked her to make a note in my file that I am not paying this bill until I get an explanation. I did this because I rarely, if ever, get connected to a supervisor. I didn’t. Odd that because she had just spoken with one regarding my claim but then I image UHC supervisors are bombarded with agents asking questions. I was forced to leave a message. My experience with leaving a message with my insurance companies or any medical provider regarding a billing question is that I will never receive a call back and I haven’t. It now has been over 48 hours which is the time frame UHC gives for these return calls.

So to sum it up:

1.UHC declined to pay for my procedure because the provider failed to bill them in a timely fashion.

2. Because the provider didn’t get paid in a timely manner, they are now billing me.

3. UHC won’t do anything to help me. They expect me to contact the provider in order to resubmit their claim and won’t guarantee that this resubmission will result in payment.

4. Which is kind of shitty behavior because the provider did supply the service and they do have a contract with UHC. But OK, I get it, there has to be some deadlines for bill submission.

5. It is equally shitty that UHC expects me to do their legwork when I have nothing to do with the problem. They declined payment based upon guidelines that I assume their providers are aware of. It then becomes their responsibility to inform the provider to stop billing me as they didn’t follow UHC requirements for billing.

This took about 45 minutes of my time to have, at the end of this call, absolutely no resolution to my problem. I am certain that I have another long phone call with someone in the future. This is horrible customer service and very suspicious too. Why are they asking the provider to resubmit? If there are rules regarding submission, there are rules. If the provider didn’t follow these rules, then the provider doesn’t receive payment. It sounds like they are trying to get the provider to back down or for me to pay the bill. Does this mean if they get harassed enough by the provider and the customer that they will grudgingly pay.?

What did Luigi Mangione’s put on his bullets: Delay, deny and depose.